Blaincv as the first Literature BoardrnChairman of the Austraha Council,rnwhich was and is this country’s mainrnarts-funding government department.rnNothing in Blainey’s pubhc remarksrnthen, or later, suggested that thernWhitlam regime regretted its choice ofrnchairman. Still, about Blainey the man,rnlittle was known. (For all his journalisticrnprominence—he has had columns in thernWeekend Australian and in Melbourne’srnthe Age—he seems to have only contemptrnfor an A.J.P. Tavlor-like ‘ocationrnas performing historiographical flea.)rnErr from being famous for 15 minutes,rnhe was profoundly respected for 15rncars. Well before Whitlam’s cut-pricernCamclot, the minority of Austrahansrnwho read works of history, and the minorityrnwithin that mnrority who hadrneven the faintest inclination to appreciaternadmirable prose, had concededrnBlainey’s excellence at interpretingrnAustralia’s annals; his wielding of thernmicroscope and the telescope with equalrnfinesse, his refusal to let his intense interestrnin economic developments sink tornvulgar determinism, his ability to combinernan e}’e for astounding statistical detailrn\’ith a positively poetic consciousnessrnof wider philosophical and geopoliticalrntrends. This last talent makes him write,rnat times, like an improbable—yet improbabl}’rnconvincing—cross betweenrnTrivial Pursuit and Frederick JacksonrnTurner.rnWhether or not Blainey sees himselfrnas an Australian counterpart to Turnerrn(probably not, since his demeanor is sornunpretentious and modest that onernimagines he would disdain such comparisons),rnthere is no mistaking the resemblancesrnbetween the two men’s attitudesrnto their respective nations, hi 1988 appearedrnone of Blainey’s least-known butrnmost fascinating works. The Great See-rnSaw, which aimed at nothing less thanrntracing the history of optimism and pessimismrnin global economic, political, andrncultural affairs from 1750. Here Blaineyrnquotes the noble and melancholy musicrnof Turner’s 1905 Atlantic Monthlyrnfarewell to the pioneer age: “The Westernrnwilds, from the Alleghenies to thernPacific, constituted the richest free giftrnthat was e’er spread out before civilizedrnman. Never again can such an opportunityrncome to the sons of men.” For anrnAustralian audience, the dying fall ofrnTurner’s plaintive theme acquires, as itrnwere, a Blainevesque obbligato not neccssarilrnaudible to American ears. Thernknack of coneying what Turner conveysrnhere, an “after the gold rush” sense ofrnsatiety, is at least as clear in Blainey’s outputrnas in Turner’s. He often combines itrnwith a tone of sober reproach for wastedrnnational opportunities, and more generallyrnwith a persistent tristesse at a peoplernthat has squandered its ancestors’ spiritualrncapital. This last quality he savesrnfrom any hint of oppressiveness by hisrntaste for quietly sardonic phrasing.rnAlmost certainl}’ Blaine) cited Turnerrnin the confident belief that the releantrnpassage would be totally new to most ofrnhis local reader.ship, because what makesrnBlainey unique in the postwar Australianrnmilieu (the sheer abundance of uniquenessrnwith Blainev is one of his most notablernfeatures) is his preoccupation withrnthe American experience. During thernearly 1980’s, he was Harvard’s Professorrnof Australian Studies, and it is as if he stillrnoccupies this chair in spirit if not in person.rnMore recently, he has contributedrnarticles to the Christian Science Monitor,rnthe New York Times Book Review, andrnWashington’s quarterly the NationalrnInterest. In a period when most Australianrnacademics continue nurturingrnmyths that American intellectual lifernproduced nothing of consequence betweenrnWalden and Annie Hall, Blaineyrnhas done more than any CrocodilernDundee to keep the trans-Pacific linesrnof communication open. With this eagernessrnon his part has gone a lack ofrnangst about Australia’s British heritage,rnwhich is as refreshing as it is, in his profession,rnrare. To all but a handful of hisrncolleagues, Britain is a veritable KingrnCharles’ head: a metaphor which losesrnnone of its aptness through the fact thatrnthey are almost all vociferous republicans.rnFor Blainey, by contrast, the Britishrninfluence on Australian life is neither arndivine gift nor the mark of Cain, but simpl’rna fact that no more deserves hystericalrnabuse than do the multiplicationrntables.rnMuch the same temperate attitude informsrnBlainey’s study of the Australia-rnAmerica relationship. As far back asrnFebruary 1983, when Paul Hogan wasrnnot yet even a gleam in Pauline Kael’srnee, Blainey was noting the source ofrnAustralia’s appeal to certain Americans:rn”There, almost, is South Dakota, beforernthe first sharp axe was heard. ‘If PresidentrnMcKinlev or Theodore Rooseveltrnwere alive toda’, I sometimes think thatrnthey would be living in Melbourne, Australia.’rnThat comment came from arnthoughtful American in his seventies.”rnIn A Shorter History of Australia he treatsrnthe topic less impressionistically andrnmore deflatingly:rnMost Australians gained strong satisfactionrnfrom the feeling that arnprotective arm was everywhere,rnthat society was fairer. The onlyrncatch was the sleight of hand.rnWhile part of the welfare bonusrncame from the redistribution ofrnvealth, especially through the newrnincome tax that richer people paid,rnmuch of the new welfare bonus,rnwhether higher money or shorterrnhours, came from an incrediblyrncomplicated scries of go’ernmentrnregulations and payments whichrnquietly penalized one group ofrnwage earners so that another couldrnbe publicly rewarded. The risingrnumbrella of social security, soothingrnas it was to people who hadrnbattled all their life, also reducedrnincentives all around.rnIn the years 1900 to 1925 thernUnited States probably did morernthan Australia to aid the welfare ofrnpeople in its control; it passed fewerrnprotective laws but allowed incentivesrnand unrestrained energy tornincrease the standard of living. . . .rnThere is a delicate balance betweenrnshielding people and encouragingrnthem, and the USA perhapsrnwent too far in one directionrnand Australia in the other. ThernSoviet Union, born in 1917 and influencedrna little by the excitingrnAustralian and New Zealand experiments,rnwould eventually showrnhow the umbrella, if too big andrncumbersome, exposed people farrnmore than it protected them.rnWhen Blainey was kind enough to letrnme interview him at his Melbournernhome last Noember, the subject recurred:rnGB: I think you probably learn morernabout Australian history, in one sense, ifrnyou keep American comparisons inrnmind, than you do from English comparisons,rneven though we’re an Englishderivedrnsociety.rnRJS: From the little that I know, manyrnAmericans were apparently so impressedrnwith various Australian phenomena that,rnfor example, they referred to the secretrnSEPTEMBER 1996/33rnrnrn